Connect with us

Alternative News

Did You Notice The Blue Ribbons & Other Political Stunts At The Oscars?

Michelle Blair

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

I love watching movies and, although I’m not really into award shows or the whole “Hollywood scene,” I decided to watch the Oscars last night. To my dismay, I found that it was less about the movies and more about American politics.

advertisement - learn more

Everyone seems to love bashing Trump, so much so that you cannot turn on your television or listen to your radio anymore without being bombarded by propaganda. Don’t get me wrong — I do not support Trump. In fact, I don’t support either side, since both the right wing and the left wing are ultimately a part of the same bird, as the saying goes. I’ve simply noticed a trend lately amongst mainstream media and the public in general, which is that there’s no escape from U.S. politics, and to me this was evident at the Oscars.

-->Free e-book - Eat to Defeat Cancer : Are you eating any of the foods that fuel cancer... or the foods that help PREVENT it? Get the TRUTH, and discover the top 10 Cancer-Fighting Superfoods Click here to get the free ebook.

Oscars Acceptance Speeches That Turned Political

If you watched the Oscars this year, you can probably think of numerous examples of propaganda during the show. Let’s start with some of the quotes from the infamous host, Jimmy Kimmel. One of the first things he said was that CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, “and any other ‘Times,’ for that matter” weren’t invited to the Oscars; a clear dig at Trump’s decision to block several mainstream media outlets from attending the White House briefing.

“This broadcast is being watched live by millions of Americans and around the world in more than 225 countries that now hate us,” he said.

“If every one of you took a minute to reach out to one person you disagree with and have a positive, considerate conversation — not as liberals or conservatives but as Americans — if we all did that it would make America great again. It starts with us,” said Kimmel.

Kimmel makes a great point: We shouldn’t be arguing over which side is correct, but rather coming together as equals. And this doesn’t just apply to Americans; we are all a part of a global community and we all feed the collective quantum field.

advertisement - learn more

“I mean, remember last year,” continued Kimmel, “when it seemed like the Oscars were racist?” Kimmel was referring to the controversial Oscars award show last year, as the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite went viral after absolutely no actors of colour were nominated, and for the second year in a row. The blame was probably in part due to prejudices, but the Academy isn’t entirely to blame. During this century, minority actors have only secured 15% of the top roles, so there really isn’t a wide variety of leading actors of colour to nominate.

Let’s not forget how the Oscars work. We don’t vote for our favourite films and actors — the 6,028 Academy Award members do. At the time, 94% of the voters were white, predominantly men, and were an average of 63 years old. It’s not hard to imagine how prejudices could manipulate the votes.

It wasn’t just Jimmy Kimmel who used his position as an opportunity to discuss politics. An overwhelming amount of people used their speeches to share their opinions, too. Although I questioned some of their motives, I do think it’s incredible that people are using their star power to try to create change and voice their opinions! However, whether that’s positive change or what their motives were, who knows.

The Best Documentary was awarded to Ezra Edelman for O. J. Simpson: Made in America, which to me was fairly shocking because it was up against some incredible documentaries, including 13th, which I wrote a CE article about last year. Edelman dedicated his award to victims of police brutality and racially motivated violence, which was a beautiful tribute, as this is a severely overlooked issue.

The presenter for Best Animated Feature Film, Gael García Bernal, voiced that he was “against any form of wall that wants to separate us.” Again, this is another beautiful declaration of equality, but a clear reference to Trump.

The winner of The White Helmets, a documentary about the Syrian conflict, even read a quote from the Koran. This award was extremely questionable, as the White Helmets have a fairly controversial reputation. The organization has received $100 million worth of funding by the U.S., the U.K., Europe, and other states.

They claim to be saving civilians in Eastern Aleppo and Idlib, yet no one over there has heard of them. They also claim to be neutral, yet they’ve been photographed carrying guns and standing around the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers. You can watch Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett further discuss the White Helmets at a United Nations talk here (starting around 15 minutes into the video).

“Through the White Helmets we are seeing the eradication of Syrian state institutions and the implanting of a Syrian shadow state by predominantly the UK, the US and supported by EU governments,” explains Vanessa Beeley, independent researcher and journalist. Yet, for some reason, the Academy deemed this organization worthy of receiving an award for their documentary.

Italian-born Alessandro Bertolazzi dedicated his makeup award for Suicide Squad to “all the immigrants.” And in what she referred to as “a small sign of solidarity,” director Ava DuVernay declared that she was wearing a gown by a designer from a majority Muslim country.

This year marked the first year in Oscar history where six black actors were nominated for awards, a record for the Academy. Viola Davis won Best Supporting Actress for her role in Fences and a Muslim man won Best Supporting Actor (Mahershala Ali, for Moonlight). Perhaps the most shocking move was when the Iranian director Asghar Farhadi, whose The Salesman was awarded Best Foreign-Language Film, boycotted the entire ceremony, refusing to attend in protest of Trump’s ban on Muslim travellers.

Someone read his acceptance speech, however, which was essentially a long-winded political statement: “Dividing the world into the ‘us’ and ‘our enemies’ categories creates fears. A deceitful justification for aggression and war. These wars prevent democracy and human rights in countries which have themselves been victims of aggression.”

These wars are largely the result of previous presidents funding them, yet no one spoke out about them in past award ceremonies. And no one mentioned the role the Obama administration played in funding ISIS and the Syrian war; it was just people addressing racist quotes and proposed policies from Trump. While I am thrilled that celebrities are using their fame to make a difference, at this point in the show, I started questioning whether or not the Academy was choosing the best films or the best opportunities to deliver political speeches.

Even the conclusion of the Oscars reminded me of the U.S. election. If you didn’t watch the awards show, it ended with La La Land being accidentally presented with the most significant award of the night for Best Picture. As it turned out, Moonlight had actually won, so during their acceptance speeches, the producer grabbed the microphone and explained the mix-up.

This strangely reminded me of the U.S. election. Everyone was so confident that Hillary Clinton would win, given her strong ties to the elite and the White House; however, Trump surprised all of us and is now the President of the United States. La La Land was presumed to win this award, actually accepted it, and then it was taken away from them. Could this have been pre-planned by the Academy as a symbol of the recent U.S. election results? It might be a stretch, but at this point, who knows?

So, What About Those Blue Ribbons? 

You may have noticed numerous celebrities sporting blue ribbons on their dresses and suits. The blue ribbons represent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-profit organization whose chief aim is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Nominees, presenters, musicians, and guests at the Oscars were allegedly encouraged to wear the ribbon to stand in solidarity for equal rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Although this is an incredible statement, I question whether this was simply another political stunt encouraged by the elite.

Although ACLU seems like a well-intended non-profit, I can’t help but question their motives, especially given their ties to elitist George Soros, a key member of the shadow government disguised as a philanthropic billionaire.

Ever since ACLU started filing lawsuits against Trump’s executive orders, the non-profit has received a massive tidal wave in contributions. According to the Washington Post, the lawsuits filed by the ACLU caused their amount of donations to skyrocket, totalling over $24 million in one weekend, which is approximately six times the organization’s average annual donations. This is not to say that I support Trump’s drastic decisions, since I am a staunch advocate for equality and democracy. However, the U.S. has not been living democratically for quite some time, and this is starting to raise some real red flags.

Many of the ACLU’s lawsuits were directly funded by George Soros and Democratic state attorneys general. Soros’s Open Society Institute has donated over $35 million to the ACLU alone and millions more to other liberal organizations willing to file lawsuits against the Trump administration’s policies. This seems like a well-intended philanthropic move, but if you know anything about George Soros, it’s safe to assume that his donations are strategic political moves to inspire chaos so he can profit from the wreckage.

Soros is well-known for his ties to the Ukrainian conflict and for creating and funding the Black Lives Matter and Women’s March movements. These movements appear to be rooted in equality but then they instil fear and manipulate us into fighting against each other, creating even more separation and division. In my opinion, this same trend was starting to play out at the Oscars.

People are so obsessed with taking a side: left or right, conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican, and then we allow this to divide us even further. We forget that, regardless of our opinions, we are still all fundamentally connected to one another. All of this separatism is an illusion, and the more we play into that, even if you think you’re fighting for “the right side,” the more divided we become.

What Can We Learn From This Year’s Oscars? 

Although the Oscars were probably once about the films, I think that it’s transitioned into something much bigger and broader. Now, it’s more so about the fashion, symbolism, pop culture, celebrities, speeches, and, apparently, politics.

I think that these awards shows in general should be more about art than anything else. The beauty in art is that it connects us all, regardless of our political opinions, race, etc. These events could serve as a platform for us to all come together and celebrate the beauty in expression and human creativity. I believe art should be shared and celebrated, not manipulated and used for a political agenda.

I do believe that there was still a lot of light that shined through the award show. Clearly many individuals are passionate about equality and creating positive change and felt the need to speak out about it, which is beautiful! In a way, this was a testament to how much people want equality. Let’s just hope that society’s newfound passion for equality doesn’t turn into another form of division by creating another radical, one-sided party.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Ontario’s Municipal Police Departments Reject Doug Ford’s “Stop & Ask” COVID Order

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 3 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    According to an investigative report, the vast majority of Ontario police will not follow Doug Ford's COVID measure asking police to stop citizens in their cars to find out where they are going during the current stay at home order.

  • Reflect On:

    Might we see law enforcement stand up to other draconian orders the government attempts to lay down?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

On April 16th Ontario premier Doug Ford announced stricter lockdown measures, including that Ontario police, both provincial and municipal, will have the power to stop citizens and ask them where they are going in order to find out if their travel outside their home is essential or whether they may be attending a social gathering. If this sounds draconian to you, you’re certainly no alone. And the police seem to think so too.

As of the evening of April 17th, just one day later, 39 or 44 municipal police departments in Ontario have stated they will not comply with this measure and stop citizens to ask where they are going. However, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) have remained onboard with the measures on social media. The tally came from investigative reporter Andrew Lawton who took it upon himself to hear from departments themselves.

Since the rejection, the Ontario government has begun changing it’s mind on the measure:

Why It Matters: This is a great example of how power is only enforced when people participate. In this case, if law enforcement went through with this, ‘the people’ wouldn’t have much of an obvious way to resist these measures, but when law enforcement denies draconian measures like this, the power the government has is restricted significantly.

Early this morning I was speaking to a fellow journalist here at CE talking about how for most people working on the police force, this measure would probably feel like one of the first times they very obviously had to ‘take things too far.’ To see only 12 hours later that the vast majority of police are standing up to this is a good sign that enforcers of rules are open to questioning their government. In my opinion, I hope this trend continues.

I also found it interesting to note that holding government accountable used to be something mainstream media would do, but now they only seem complicit in going along with government. Independent media now is tasked with the job, all while they face funding challenges and claims from mainstream and social media that independent media is not trustworthy.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Ontario (Canada) Gives Police Authority To Pull Over Vehicles To Find Out Where They Are Going

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 6 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Ontario government has just announced very strict lockdown and stay at home orders. They've also given police the power to pull people over to find out where they are going and where they live.

  • Reflect On:

    Is this really about the virus? Why are so many experts, and so much science that opposes what government is saying completely unacknowledged?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what’ is being built is the architecture of oppression. -Edward Snowden (source)

Ontario, Canada has just announced stronger lockdown measures after current lockdown measures and stay at home orders have not done anything to slow the spread of covid when taking cases into account. Under the new orders, most non-essential businesses, manufacturing and construction will be closed, this includes non-essential curb side pick ups as well for retail businesses. Outdoor recreational facilities like parks, basketball courts, tennis courts and golf courses will now be closed and essential businesses, like grocery stores, will be limited to a certain capacity.

For the first time, the Ontario government has given police officers the power to pull vehicles over without cause, demand their ID and home address as well as ask where they are going and why. This also applies to citizens who are outside. This is effective immediately for a period of 6 weeks.

I just came across this via the live press conference. Part of the changes in the recent announcement were to give police more authority to handle non-compliance, something that’s been a big part of this pandemic as many people, doctors and scientists continue to disagree with the actions being taken by governments, while others agree. The government has also put restrictions on travel between provinces.

We have made the deliberate decision to temporarily enhance police officers’ authority for the duration of the stay at home order. Moving forward, police will have the authority to require any individual who is not in a place of residence to first provide the purpose for not being at home and provide their home address. – Solicitor General Sylvia Jones said in the press conference.

The Ontario government continues to blame the citizenry for non-compliance when, in reality, there is a tremendous amount of science and data that’s been published in various medical and scientific journals from around the world showing that lockdowns have not been helpful in stopping the spread of COVID.

Furthermore, there is research showing lockdowns have killed more people than covid, and will have devastating results for years to come. Not only that, an estimate from the United Nations World Food Program indicates that pandemic lockdowns causing breaks in the food chain are expected to push 135 million people into severe hunger and starvation.

The ease to which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence…came as a shock to me…History will look back on measures – as a monument of collective hysteria & government folly.” – Jonathan Sumption, former British supreme court justice. (source)

This is quite confusing, if lockdowns and restrictions aren’t necessarily helping to curb the spread, why is government, especially the Ontario government, acting like they are effective and necessary tools? This is a discussion that has not been had within the mainstream. Renowned experts in the field who are presenting this data have been completely ignored, censored and in many cases ridiculed.

Another point that’s being used to justify restriction measures is the fact that hospitals in Ontario are at capacity, and ICUs are full. This has always been a concern in many countries, especially in Ontario, Canada. For example, in 2017 more than 50 percent of hospitals in Ontario were above 100 percent capacity. There are examples all over the world for the past decade. That being said, is covid adding to this, or is it simply something we’ve always seen in hospitals? Is the only difference big media coverage?

What about the fact that PCR testing may yield an enormous amount of false positives? Testing positive does not mean you have the virus, or that you can spread it, especially if you are asymptomatic, yet this entire lockdown is based on testing asymptomatic people and asymptomatic cases. What about the death count and the fact that Ontario Public Health has admitted to the fact that they are marking deaths as “covid” when it’s not even clear if covid caused or contributed to the death? What about the fact that the survival rate of the virus is 99.95 percent and above for people under the age of 70, or that prior infection can provide more immunity than the vaccine?

Again, the point is,there are many concerns that are being completely ignored and unacknowledged.

In the case of covid, it’s quite clear that people of all backgrounds and professions are split. You even have world renowned experts in the field split on these issues, with many opposing and supporting measures. As a result, this has many people confused, and it begs the question, should government really have the authority to put mandates into place that restrict our movement, rights and freedoms?

Is this really about the virus, or about the benefits that big tech, health and government will reap and have been reaping from this pandemic? When measures go against the will of so many people, should government not be allowed to mandate such measures and instead, present their science and make recommendations to people, leaving them the choice to act in ways they see fit?

Are we living in an age where government and big tech are doing the thinking for us, telling us what is and isn’t and trying to control our lives more and more every single year? How do we stop this if it’s true? Why do we continue to comply? One thing is certain, covid has been a great catalyst for more and more people to really question what type of world we are currently living in.

So what’s the solution to this? Is it mass/collective organized peaceful non-compliance? A Belgian court has ruled that the current COVID-19 measures being deployed don’t have a sound legal basis. The State has 30 days to lift restrictions or face fines. Can something like this happen in this situation? We will wait and see what happens as, no doubt, many people are going to be upset and showing it.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Florida Education Minister Urges Schools To Drop Mask Mandates

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran said schools should make mask-wearing voluntary in the 2021-2022 school year, stating that they should simply be optional.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is one narrative being pushed hard, while the other is being heavily ridiculed and labelled as "dangerous" by mainstream media and government?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

What Happened: Earlier this week, Florida’s education commissioner directed all schools to drop mask mandates for the next school year because, according to him, they are not necessary and can simply be an optional measure for students and parents. According to him, mask policies “do not impact the spread of the virus” and they “may impede instruction” for some students. The decision is not up to him, however, as each individual district will ultimately decide whether or not they want to impose mask mandes for next school year.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently convened a round table on public health. At that discussion, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University Dr. Jay Bhattacharya stated that “masks have not only been not effective but have been harmful.”

The video of this discussion was removed from YouTube, and then ridiculed by mainstream media. This has been a big problem throughout this pandemic. We have big tech “fact-checkers” censoring and removing any kind of narrative that does not fit within the framework or narrative that government health authorities are telling us. If things were so obvious, why would they need to censor world renowned experts?  It’s been a common theme, and Bhattacharya is one of many who have been subjected to this type of treatment.

He’s one of the three initiators of The Great Barrington Declaration. The other two are  Dr. Sunetra Gupta, PhD Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, PhD, Professor of Medicine at Harvard, Infectious Disease Epidemiologist. You can watch an interesting discussion with all three of them here if interested.

Bhattacharya responded to the criticism in a recent piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) stating the following:

I attended a public-policy roundtable hosted by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last month. The point was to discuss the state’s Covid policies in the months ahead. That 600,000 Americans have died with Covid-19 is evidence that the lockdowns over the past year, including significant restrictions on the lives of children, haven’t worked. Florida reopened in May and declined to shut down again. Yet age-adjusted mortality is lower in Florida than in locked-down California, and Florida’s public schools are almost all open, while California’s aren’t.

My fellow panelists—Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Scott Atlas of Stanford—and I discussed a variety of topics. One was the wisdom of requiring children to wear masks. The press asked questions, and a video of the event was posted on YouTube by local media, including Tampa’s WTSP.

But last week YouTube removed a recording of this routine policy discussion from its website. The company claimed my fellow panel members and I were trafficking in misinformation. The company said it removed the video “because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

Yet the panelists are all experts, and all spoke against requiring children to wear masks. I can’t speak for my counterparts, but my reasoning was a cost-benefit analysis. The benefits of masking children are small to none; the costs are much higher.

The scientific evidence is clear.

He then goes on to cite site some science.

Kari Stefansson, senior author of a study  study from Iceland conducted early in the epidemic when masking was uncommon showing that incidents of covid in children is far less than adults, stated that children are.

“less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults.”

According to Bhattacharya, “many studies in the scientific literature reach a similar conclusion: Even unmasked children pose less of a risk for disease spread than adults.”

For example, Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute wrote letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that:

“Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

You can read more about this specific story here, as he has quit his research due to the harassment he received for simply presenting data.

Why This Is Important: There are the points made above, and then there are papers outlining the supposed dangers and ineffectiveness of masks. Many have been published in peer-reviewed scientific/medical journals prior to covid, and during covid.

For example, one paper titled “Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis” concludes:

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

I’ve written about a study published in the New England Medical Journal by Harvard doctors that outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection in a public setting. According to them,

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The papers cited above are a few of many, there are a plethora of them available within the scientific literature.

Yes, there are also studies that claim and explain why they believe masks are an effective tool to mitigate the virus, and we know that organizations like the Centres For Disease Control (CDC) deem them to be extremely effective and necessary.  The point is, why are those who point out, explain, and provide evidence and reason for the idea that masks are not effective being heavily censored, vilified, and ridiculed? What’s going on here? Why is proper critique and discussion being completely shut down and why are those who are creating awareness about these issues labelled as “dangerous anti-maskers.” This, in my opinion is quite frankly unscientific.

Perhaps I can explore one possible explanation. Perhaps any type of information, data or evidence, no matter how credible, that opposes the measures and narrative of government and big media threatens various business/agendas in these powerful circles. It begs the question, does government and government affiliated health/business really look out for what’s best for its citizens? The COVID pandemic has definitely served as a catalyst for more people to ask that question who wouldn’t have prior to the pandemic.

This is just my opinion, but in presenting it I put our platform, Collective Evolution, at risk being punished in various ways for simply sharing it. We’ve not only been falsely smeared by fact checkers but have also been hurt financially on social media simply for bringing forth facts that the mainstream doesn’t wish to address.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, it’s very difficult to determine who is right or wrong, which is why we need open dialogue. The fact that simple discussion and pieces of evidence that change the narrative, or threaten it, is being shut down, censored and completely ridiculed is quite concerning. The mainstream media continues to fail to have appropriate conversations surrounding all things COVID while forcing their narrative on the public. This in turn has created a great divide among the citizenry when really, we should all be coming together and respecting everybody’s decision to act as they please.

When things are not so cut and dry, it’s questionable whether or not we should really give governments the ability to control our lives in the manner they have done with this pandemic.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. –

Dr. Kamran Abbasi, executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open. Taken from his published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!